Netext WG S. Krishnan, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track R. Koodli
Expires: March 5, 2011 Cisco Systems
P. Loureiro
NEC
Q. Wu
Huawei
A. Dutta
Telcordia
September 1, 2010
Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-00
Abstract
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management
protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its
participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all
communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can
be suboptimal, localized routing allows mobile nodes attached to the
same or different mobile access gateways to exchange traffic by using
localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This
document proposes an initiation mechanism for localized routing.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Initiation of Localized Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. MAG behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. LMA behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Scenario A11: Two MNs attached to the same MAG and LMA . . . . 6
4.1. Handover Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Scenario A21: Two MNs attached to different MAGs but same
LMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Handover Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Scenario A12: Two MNs attached to the same MAG with
different LMAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Handover Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Scenario A22: Two MNs attached to the different MAGs with
different LMAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IPv4 support in Localized Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Localized Routing Acknowledgment (LRA) . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. New Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. MAG IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
1. Introduction
Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] describes the protocol operations to
maintain reachability and session persistence for a Mobile Node (MN)
without the explicit participation from the MN in signaling
operations at the Internet Protocol (IP) layer. In order to
facilitate such network-based mobility, the PMIPv6 protocol defines a
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), which acts as a proxy for the Mobile
IPv6 [RFC3775] signaling, and the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) which
acts similar to a Home Agent. The LMA and the MAG estalish a
bidirectional tunnel for forwarding all data traffic belonging to the
Mobile Nodes. In the case where both endpoints are located in the
same PMIPv6 domain, this can be suboptimal and results in higher
delay and congestion in the network. Moreover, it increases
transport costs and traffic load at the LMA.
To overcome these issues, localized routing can be used to allow
nodes attached to the same or different MAGs to directly exchange
traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the
gateways. [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps] defines the problem
statement for PMIPv6 localized routing. This document describes a
solution for PMIPv6 localized routing. The protocol specified here
assumes that each MN is attached to a MAG and that each MN's MAG has
established a binding for the attached MN at its selected LMA
according to [RFC5213].
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
2. Initiation of Localized Routing
Since the traffic to be localized passes through both the LMA and the
MAGs, it is possible, at least in some scenarios, for either of them
to initiate LR. In order to eliminate ambiguity, the protocol
described in this document selects the initiator of the LR based on
the following rules.
2.1. MAG behavior
The MAG MUST Initiate LR if both the communicating MNs are attached
to it and the MNs are anchored at different LMAs. The MAG MUST NOT
initiate LR in any other case.
2.2. LMA behavior
The LMA MUST Initiate LR if both the communicating MNs are anchored
to it. The LMA MUST NOT initiate LR in any other case.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
3. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
4. Scenario A11: Two MNs attached to the same MAG and LMA
In this scenario, the two Mobile Nodes involved in communication are
attached to a single MAG and both are anchored at the same LMA.
Internet
:
|
|
+-----+
| LMA |
+-----+
|
|
|
+-----+
| MAG |
+-----+
: :
+---+ +---+
|MN1| |MN2|
+---+ +---+
The LMA initiates a localized routing session by detecting a flow
between two MNs attached to the same MAG. The exact flow
identification mechanism is not specified in this document, and is
left open for implementations and specific deployments. An example
trigger could be that an application-layer signaling entity detects
the possibility of localized routing and notifies the LMA about the
two flow end-points, and the LMA determines that the two end-points
are attached to the same MAG. Such a trigger mechanism offers
localized routing at the granularity of an individual application
session, providing flexibility in usage. It is also possible that
one of the mobility entities (LMA or MAG) could decide to initiate
localized routing based on configured policy.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN2 | |MAG | |LMA |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| | | |
| data | data |
|<--------------------->|<------------->|
| | | |
| | data | data |
| |<--------->|<------------->|
| | | LR decision
| | | LRI(Opt1) |
| | |<--------------|
| | | |
| | | LRA(Opt2) |
| | |-------------->|
| | | |
| data | |
|<--------------------->| |
| | | |
| | data | |
| |<--------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
Opt1: R=0,S=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
Opt2: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
After detecting a possibility for localized routing, the LMA
constructs a Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) message that is used
to signal the intent to initiate localized routing and to convey
parameters for the same. This is a Mobility Header message and it
contains the MN-Identifier and the Home Network Prefix (as Mobility
Header options) for each of the MNs involved. The LMA sends the LRI
message to the MAG where the two MNs are attached.
The MAG starts by verifying that the two MNs are indeed attached to
it. It then verifies if the EnableMAGLocalRouting flag is set to 1.
If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing
and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code
"Localized Routing Not Allowed". It then creates Localized Routing
Entries(LREs) for each direction of the communication between the two
MNs. The exact form of the forwarding entries is left for the
implementations to decide; however, they should contain the HNP
corresponding to the destination IP address and a next-hop identifier
(e.g. the layer 2 address of the next- hop). These LREs MUST
override the BUL entries for the specific HNPs identified in the LRI
message. Hence all traffic matching the HNPs is forwarded locally.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
If a MAG is unable to make deliver packets using the LREs, it is
possible that the MN is no longer attached to the MAG. Hence, the
MAG SHOULD fall back to using the BUL entry, and the LMA MUST forward
the received packets using its BCE.
The local forwarding is not permanent. For instance, the LMA may
send a LRI message with a request to cancel an existing local
forwarding service. The local forwarding also has a default
lifetime, upon the expiry of which, the forwarding reverts to
bidirectional tunneling. When local forwarding service ceases, the
corresponding LFE entries MUST be removed.
The MAG completes the processing of the LRI message and responds with
a Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA) message. This Mobility Header
message also includes the MN-ID and the HNP for each of the
communicating MNs as well as an appropriate Status code indicating
the outcome of LRI processing. Status code 0 indicates localized
routing was successfully offered by the MAG. Any other value for
Status code indicates the reason for the failure to offer localized
routing service. When Status code is 0, the LMA sets a flag in the
BCE corresponding to the HNPs to record that localized routing is in
progress for that HNP.
The MAG may refresh the lifetime of an existing local forwarding
service. For this, it sends an unsolicited LRA (U-LRA) message that
contains the new lifetime value. The MAG MUST wait for the following
LRI message from the LMA before it can conclude that the refresh
request is granted.
4.1. Handover Considerations
If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from the MAG and attaches to
another MAG(say nMAG) the localized routing state needs to be re-
established. When the LMA receives the PBU from nMAG for MN1, it
will see that localized routing is active for for MN1. It will hence
initiate LR at nMAG and update the LR state of MAG. After the
handover completes, the localized routing will resemble Scenario A21.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
5. Scenario A21: Two MNs attached to different MAGs but same LMA
The LMA may choose to support local forwarding to mobile nodes
attached to two different MAGs within a single PMIPv6 domain.
Internet
:
|
|
+-----+
| LMA |
+-----+
|
|
+----+-----+
| |
+----+ +----+
|MAG1| |MAG2|
+----+ +----+
: :
+---+ +---+
|MN1| |MN2|
+---+ +---+
As earlier, the LMA initiates LRI as a response to some trigger
mechanism. In this case, however, it sends two separate LRI messages
to the two MAGs. In addition to the MN-ID and the HNP options, each
LRI message contains the IP Address of the counterpart MAG. When the
MAG IP Address option is present, each MAG MUST create a local
forwarding entry such that the packets for the MN attached to the
remote MAG are sent over a tunnel associated with that remote MAG.
The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means
outside the scope of this document.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN2 | |MAG1| |MAG2| |LMA |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| | | | |
| data | data |
|<--------------------->|<----------------------->|
| | | | |
| | data | data |
| |<--------------------->|<----------->|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | LRI(Opt1) |
| | |<------------------------|
| | | | |
| | | | LRI(Opt2) |
| | | |<------------|
| | | | |
| | | LRA(Opt3) |
| | |------------------------>|
| | | | |
| | | | LRA(Opt4) |
| | | |------------>|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| data | data | |
|<--------------------->|<--------->| |
| | | | |
| | data | |
| |<--------------------->| |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Opt1: R=0,S=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MAG2-IPv6-Address
Opt2: R=0,S=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP,MAG1-IPv6-Address
Opt3: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP,MAG2-IPv6-Address
Opt4: R=1,U=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP,MAG1-IPv6-Address
As before, each MAG responds to the LRI with an LRA message. Barring
the error cases, all subsequent packets are routed between the MAGs
locally, without traversing the LMA.
The protocol does not require any synchronization between the MAGs
before local forwarding begins. Each MAG begins its local forwarding
independent of the other.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
5.1. Handover Considerations
If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from its current MAG (in this
case MAG1) and attaches to another MAG (say nMAG1) the localized
routing state needs to be re-established. When the LMA receives the
PBU from nMAG1 for MN1, it will see that localized routing is active
for for MN1. It will hence initiate LR at nMAG1 and update the LR
state of MAG2 to use nMAG1 instead of MAG1.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
6. Scenario A12: Two MNs attached to the same MAG with different LMAs
In this scenario, both the MNs are attached to the same MAG, but are
anchored at two different LMAs.
Internet
: :
+------------------+
| |
+----+ +----+
|LMA1| |LMA2|
+----+ +----+
| |
| |
+------------------+
|
|
|
+-----+
| MAG |
+-----+
: :
+---+ +---+
|MN1| |MN2|
+---+ +---+
Hence, neither LMA has a means to determine that the two Mobile Nodes
are attached to the same MAG. Only the MAG can possibly determine
that the two Mobile Nodes involved in communication are attached to
it. Hence the local routing has to be initiated by the MAG.
The MAG sends an LRI message containing the MN-ID, HNP and the
counterpart LMA address to each LMA. Each LMA makes decision to
support local forwarding independently, based on, among others,
policy configuration for the counterpart LMA. Each LMA MUST respond
to the LRI message with an LRA message. Only after it receives both
the LRA messages each with Status value set to zero (success) from
the two different LMAs, the MAG MUST conclude that it can provide
local forwarding support for the two Mobile Nodes.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|MN1 | |MN2 | |MAG | |LMA1| |LMA2|
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| | | | |
| data | data | data |
|<--------------------->|<--------->|<----------->|
| | | | |
| | data | data |
| |<--------->|<----------------------->|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | LRI(Opt1) | |
| | |---------->| |
| | | | |
| | | LRI(Opt2) |
| | |------------------------>|
| | | | |
| | | LRA(Opt3) | |
| | |<----------| |
| | | | |
| | | LRA(Opt4) |
| | |<------------------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| data | data | |
|<--------------------->|<--------->| |
| | | | |
| | data | | |
| |<--------->| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Opt1: R=0,S=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP
Opt2: R=0,S=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
Opt3: R=1,U=0,MN1-ID,MN1-HNP
Opt4: R=1,U=0,MN2-ID,MN2-HNP
6.1. Handover Considerations
If one of the MNs, say MN1, detaches from its current MAG (in this
case MAG1) and attaches to another MAG (say nMAG1) the localized
routing state needs to be re-established. After the handover
completes, the localized routing will resemble Scenario A22.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
7. Scenario A22: Two MNs attached to the different MAGs with different
LMAs
This scenario will not be covered in this document since PMIPv6 does
not define any form of inter-LMA communications. When a supported
scenario, such as Scenario A12, morphs into Scenario A22 the node
that initiated the localized routing session SHOULD tear it down in
order to prevent lasting packet loss. This can result in transient
packet loss when routing switches between the localized path into the
normal path through the LMAs. In applications that are loss
sensitive, this can lead to observable service disruptions. In
deployments where Scenario A22 is possible, it is recommended that
localized routing not be initiated when packet-loss-sensitive
applications are in use.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
8. IPv4 support in Localized Routing
PMIPv6 MNs can use an IPv4 HoA as described in
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support]. In order to support the setup
and maintenance of localized routes for these IPv4 HoAs in PMIPv6,
MAGs must add the IPv4 HoAs into their LREs. The MAGs MUST also
support encapsulation of IPv4 packets as described in
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support]. The localized routing protocol
messages MUST include a IPv4 HoA option in their signaling messages
in order to support IPv4 addresses for localized routing.
If the transport network between the PMIPv6 entitites involved in
localized routing is IPv4-only, the LRI and LRA messages MUST be
encapsulated similar to the PBU/PBA messages as specified in
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support]. The encapsulation mode used
SHOULD be identical to the one used to transport PBU and PBA
messages.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
9. Message Formats
All the Localized routing messages use a new mobility header type
(TBA1). The LRI message requests creation or deletion of localized
routing state and the LRA message acknowledges the creation or
deletion of such localized routing state.
9.1. Localized Routing Initiation (LRI)
The LMA sends an LRI message to a MAG to request local forwarding for
a pair of MNs. The MAG may also send this message to request the two
LMAs for offering local forwarding as described in Section 6 .
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence # |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|S| Reserved | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Mobility options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sequence Number: A monotonically increasing integer. Set by a
sending node in a request message, and used to match a reply to
the request.
'R' flag: Set to 0, indicates it is an LRI message.
'S' flag: When set to 1, indicates a request to stop local
routing.
Reserved: This field is unused. MUST be set zero.
Lifetime: The requested time in seconds for which the sender
wishes to have local forwarding. A value of 0xffff (all ones)
indicates an infinite lifetime.
Mobility Options: MUST contain the MN-ID, followed by one or more
HNPs for each of the MNs. For instance, for Mobile Nodes MN-1 and
MN-2 with identifiers MN1-ID, MN2-ID and Home Network Prefixes
MN1-HNP and MN2-HNP, the following tuple in the following order
MUST be present: [MN1-ID, MN1-HNP], [MN2-ID, MN2-HNP]. The
MN-ID and HNP options are the same as in [RFC5213]. MAY contain
the remote MAG IPv6 address option, which is identical to the HNP
option except for Prefix Length equal to 128 bits.
The LRI message SHOULD be re-transmitted if a corresponding LRA
message is not received within LRA_WAIT_TIME time units, up to a
maximum of LRI_RETRIES, each separated by LRA_WAIT_TIME time units.
9.2. Localized Routing Acknowledgment (LRA)
A MAG sends an LRA message to the LMA as a response to the LRI
message. An LMA may also send this message to a MAG as a response to
the LRI message as described in Section 6 .
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence # |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|U| Reserved | Status | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Mobility options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sequence Number: is copied from the sequence number field of the
LRI message being responded to.
'R' flag: Set to 1, indicates it is an LRA message.
'U' flag: When set to 1, the LRA message is sent unsolicited.
The Lifetime field indicates a new requested value. The MAG MUST
wait for the regular LRI message to confirm that the request is
acceptable to the LMA.
Reserved: This field is unused. MUST be set zero.
Status:
0: Success
128: Localized Routing Not Allowed
129: MN not attached
Lifetime: The time in seconds for which the local forwarding is
supported. Typically copied from the corresponding field in the
LRI message.
Mobility Options: When Status code is 0, MUST contain the [MN-ID,
HNP] tuples in the same order as in the LRI message. When Status
code is 1, MUST contain only those [MN-ID, HNP] tuples for which
local forwarding is supported. The MN-ID and HNP options are the
same as in [RFC5213].
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
10. New Mobility Option
10.1. MAG IPv6 Address
The MAG IPv6 address mobility option contains the IPv6 address of a
MAG involved in the localized routing. The MAG IPv6 address option
has an alignment requirement of 8n+4.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | Address Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ MAG IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
TBA3
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option
in octets, excluding the type and length fields. This field
MUST be set to 18.
Reserved (R)
This 8-bit field is unused for now. The value MUST be
initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
Address Length
This field MUST be set to 128.
MAG IPv6 Address
A 16 byte field containing the MAG's IPv6 Address.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
11. Security Considerations
The protocol specified in this document uses the same security
association between the LMA and the MAG to protect the LRI and LRA
messages. No new security risks are identified. Support for
integrity protection using IPsec is required, but support for
confidentiality is not necessary.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
12. IANA Considerations
The Localized Routing Initiation, described in Section 9.1 and the
Local Routing Acknowledgment, described in Section 9.2 require a
single Mobility Header Type (TBA1) from the Mobility Header Types
registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters
The MAG IPv6 Address and the LMA IPv6 Address require a Mobility
Option Type each (TBA2 and TBA3) from the Mobility Options registry
at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
13. Authors
This draft merges ideas from five different drafts addressing the
PMIP localized routing problem. The authors of these drafts are
listed below (in alphabetical order)
Kuntal Chowdhury <kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com>
Ashutosh Dutta <adutta@research.telcordia.com>
Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch@nw.neclab.eu>
Paulo Loureiro <paulo.loureiro@nw.neclab.eu>
Desire Oulai <desire.oulai@videotron.com>
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
14. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Sri Gundavelli, Julien Abeille, Tom
Taylor, Kent Leung, Mohana Jeyatharan, Jouni Korhonen, Glen Zorn,
Ahmad Muhanna and Zoltan Turanyi for their comments and suggestions.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
15. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps]
Liebsch, M., Jeong, S., and W. Wu, "PMIPv6 Localized
Routing Problem Statement",
draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-03 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support]
Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-18
(work in progress), February 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PMIPv6 Localized Routing September 2010
Authors' Addresses
Suresh Krishnan (editor)
Ericsson
8400 Blvd Decarie
Town of Mount Royal, Quebec
Canada
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Rajeev Koodli
Cisco Systems
Email: rkoodli@cisco.com
Paulo Loureiro
NEC
Email: paulo.loureiro@nw.neclab.eu
Qin Wu
Huawei
Email: Sunseawq@huawei.com
Ashutosh Dutta
Telcordia
Email: adutta@research.telcordia.com
Krishnan, et al. Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 25]